Fight the election on crime, Mr Cameron

Earlier today I noted an important interview that David Cameron gave to the Yorkshire Post.  In that interview he promised to emphasise social breakdown in a likely autumn General Election.  Although the party must have strong and coherent policies on economic issues I think Mr Cameron may be judging things about right.  It's not quite a Jamie Bulger moment but last night's tragic shooting of Rhys Jones is a terrible confirmation of how rotten much of British society is becoming.  The accounts of Rhys' mum cradling her eleven-year-old son as he lay dying is truly horrifying.

In his excellent speech yesterday David Cameron set out a three dimensional approach to fighting social disorder.  He promised action to improve the criminal justice system by giving more power to magistrates.  He undertook to free the police from the bureaucracy that means that they're off the beat for 80% of the time.  And, vitally, he promises to rebuild the social structures that help young people to escape from the conveyor belt to crime.  In the last two areas he has been given a very strong set of policy options by Nick Herbert and Iain Duncan Smith.  Nick's police reform agenda and IDS' 'Breakthrough Britain' report mean that the Conservative Party can offer Britain a thought-through approach to turning the tide on crime and anti-social behaviour.

It's also good to see David Davis running hard on all of these issues.  Writing for tonight's Evening Standard he holds the Government responsible for the offensive Chindamo decision.  Extracts are printed below this editorial.

The Conservative approach to these questions is David Cameron's greatest achievement as Tory leader.  There's still the familar Conservative commitment to punish serious and repeat offenders.  There's still belief in the Michael Howard doctrine that 'prison works'.  There are new and welcome policies to scrap the Human Rights Act.  David Davis is certainly the right man to convince core Tory voters that the party will be tough on crime.  But alongside the familar policies there is a commitment to be tough on those infamous causes of crime which have only become more powerful in the Brown-Blair years.  Tory action against drug and alcohol addiction, measures to help families stay together and support for the social enterprise sector give the party a strong anti-crime agenda.  These should be the issues that now stand at the heart of David Cameron's bid to be Britain's next Prime Minister.

***

EXTRACTS FROM DAVID DAVIS' ARTICLE FOR THE EVENING STANDARD

Labour are responsible for the Chindamo decision: "The  Chindamo  decision  was  based  on an EU Directive which placed higher value  on  Chindamo's  right  to  stay  in  Britain - as a UK resident, not citizen  -  than on the threat he poses to the public. That deal was struck in  Brussels  and  agreed  by  this  Government  - on Jack Straw's watch as Foreign  Secretary  -  so the Government cannot duck responsibility for its own decisions."

The perversities caused by the Brown-Blair Human Rights Act: The  confusion  generated  by Labour's warped approach  to  human  rights has seen £1million paid in compensation to drug addicted  prisoners  (denied  their  'right'  to  methadone),  the names of fugitive   killers  withheld  to  protect  their  'privacy'  and  convicted paedophiles allowed to use the same gym as schoolchildren.  The  Human Rights Act has contributed to this confusion, but Gordon Brown - despite  the  tough  talk  on  crime  and  security - stubbornly refuses to consider  replacing  it. 

The Conservative approach: "The  Conservatives stand for the fundamental freedoms that this country has cherished  for  centuries  and  millions  have  died  defending: freedom of speech,  trial  by  jury,  and  freedom  from  arbitrary  detention  -  all undermined by draconian measures under Labour over the last decade.  But  we  stand  for  a  common  sense application of those freedoms. Rights with  responsibilities. And a  proper  balance between competing rights.   There  are  two ways a Conservative Government would achieve this. To start with,  we  would put an end to the endless haemorrhaging of national powers over crime,  policing and immigration to Brussels - and put any referendum on the 'new' EU Constitution to a referendum of the British people.  We  would  also replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights."

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

We have had the incident of a child being shot dead in Liverpool and today a man shot in the face in the street. The Government really have lost the plot on the law and order debate and this is a policy area that constantly hits home the electorate.

I agee editor - come the election the party needs to talk about crime time and time again! - Where the Government have let people down, and what we will do to resolve the current situation.

[Jennifer Wells]

I agree 100%. Britain deserves better than this. Something is very sick in our society and Labour's indifference to the family, its failure to provide proper rehab for drug offenders, the early prisoner release scandal and the failure to support small community entrepreneurs is a big part of the problem.

[Stand Up Throw Up]

When will the leadership realise they have completely screwed us on some of our strongest issues???

Crime - "Hug a hoody"
Tax - "No overall change to the level of taxation"
Education - "Wanting more grammar schools is delusional"

Just come back from two hours survey canvassing and this is what gets thrown at us on the doorstep in sarf east London. No-one is interested in climate change, Rwanda or chocolate oranges at supermarket checkouts.

[Editor]

Cameron never said Hug-A-Hoddie, SUTU. What he was getting at - rightly - is that so many young people grow up without love or a sense of belonging and turn to criminal gangs for a corrupted substitute for what strong families would normally provide them.

[gingeral]

Yes! How about a manifesto commitment to making life mean life for murderers?

[Stand Up Throw Up]

Sure Tim...but that's what sticks in peoples' minds on the doorstep....

"What about your lot then...that posh geezer...what did he say...hug a hoody...not bloody likely" etc etc

[Luke]

To be fair Coulson has obviously initiated a different approach in this area.

News of the World hated Hug a Hoodie. And Anarchy in the UK has all the hallmarks of Coulson. The Sun welcomed the u turn today.

I'd almost forgot what it was like to see a Tory story spun well to the press. Cameron's biggest mistake was downgrading the press office and operating without any senior press handlers until the arrival of Coulson.

[michael m]

What a pity and shame that we have not had any Conservative spokesman on the media today denouncing this Government's law and order record- they should be angrily slamming any pretence that Blair/Brown have that crime is falling. Instead, Brown under the guise of statesmanship etc has called yet another forum in Downing Street and is now claiming that he will crack down on gang warfare etc- in other words we have allowed him to call the agenda once again

We can but imagine what Blair would have been saying had all this happened in 1996- remember how he capitalised on the Dunblane tragedy?
Oh for a front bench that really wants to win!!

[Andrew Lilico]

Addressing the causes of crime, and of social breakdown more generally, could be a richly fruitful platform-basis...*if* one can come up with anything simple and credible that could actually address these. Whilst I laud the ambition, the political difficulty in starting from here seems to me to be that there aren't any short-cuts and there are few really compelling theories about exactly what has gone wrong that anyone has any appetite to do anything about.

For instance, I am 100% sold on the thought that family breakdown is an important driver of social breakdown. But do we have anything credible to sell on how we will reduce family breakdown? The marriage (or something like that) tax-break might be a good idea, but in our heart-of-hearts we don't believe that that will make a material difference, really. That doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. But unless we come up with something that we and lots of other people really believe might make a truly *material* difference, it's difficult to justify mainlining on these issues. If we can only make a marginal difference, then making it the centrepiece of our policy offering risks making us seem like we are self-indulgent - complaining a lot, but without having any proper solutions.

I think that IDS' work is excellent, and I think that there *should* be things we could mainline on. But what are they? I could imagine things, but they would be much more radical than anything Cameron seems to have had an appetite for. We might, for example, propose *seriously* rebalancing the tax system in favour of contracted (married) couples; we might *seriously* reform the marriage laws, so that there were real penalties for separation; we might introduce variable unemployment or sickness insurance (vastly expanding the current NI system); we might radically change the planning system so as to allow local authorities literally to level unpleasant areas or to really *mandate* mixed-tenure development; we might massively increase funding for children in residential care (those brought up in such circumstances represent an astonishing **one third** of prisoners, IIRC, despite being much less than 1% of the population); and many other similar things. Some of these I would support; others not. But does Cameron have the appetite to take such significant risks - for the reality is that most of the things that might work have a high risk of being very disruptive and expensive and actually achieving very little. So one must really have a high appetite and a high will to try things, have them go wrong, tough it out and try something else, until something starts to work. Does Cameron have such a will, and if he does personally, would the Party back him up?

[Allan Cuthbertson]

Perhaps the cause of the decline in standards in society arises from 'Thatchers children' growing up in the 80's who are now parents who have instilled the same docrine as the former PM believed in 'there is no such thing as society'......

[Stephen]

I felt compelled to compile a list (below) of all the needless murders in the UK on the "Anarchy in the UK" post.

Rhys Jones
James Oyebola
Garry Newlove
Evren Anil
Martin Dinnegan
Sian Simpson
Carlos Eduardo Segove
Mikey Brown
Annaka Pinto
Ben Hitchcock
Paul Erhahon
Adam Regis
Kodjo Yenga
Billy Cox
Michael Dosunmu
James Smartt-Ford
Abu Shahin
Abukar Mahamud
Kiyan Prince
Deividas Strizegauskas
Nathan Foster
Kamilah Peniston
Peter Jones
Peter Woodhams
Tom ap Rhys Pryce
Balbir Matharu

[BMc]

"Perhaps the cause of the decline in standards in society arises from 'Thatchers children' growing up in the 80's who are now parents who have instilled the same docrine as the former PM believed in 'there is no such thing as society'......"

Oh Allan, you mischevious scamp. Even if this wasn't absolute rot, it hardly says a lot for the effectiveness of Blairism if it is true does it?

[HF]

I agree that DC is onto the right subject and DD is our ace in this area. Such a tragic waste of life but maybe inevitable with the rise in male N.E.E.Ts.

We need a modern form of apprenticeships that nurture young workers probably subsidised through nil tax for them and their employers?

[Sean Fear]

Allan Cuthbertson,

It's wearing a bit thin to try and blame today's social problems on someone who was last in office 17 years ago.

I doubt if most violent criminals are politically engaged.

[christina]

Cameron may not have said Hug a Hoodie but his approach is limp-wristed and Stand Up Throw Up has got it right. Just look at what this blog put out today as his key 4 points
"The Telegraph lists some of David Cameron's prescriptions for tackling crime:

=="Young offenders to be barred from driving, to "hit them where it hurts: in their lifestyle and their aspirations".
==Enact powers allowing magistrates to sentence people to up to one year in jail, up from the existing six months.
==Scrap the early release scheme introduced by ministers to ease pressure on prison places.
==Free police from form-filling to allow them to spend more time on patrol."

Since the yobbos ignore the law how will barring them from driving help. A year in jail? they're full and anyway they get let out after about 5 months . Scrapping early releases? The gaols are full and will remain so as long as we can't an d won't under EU law, deport the foreign criminals

The key is the demoralised police - who refuse to respond to a 999 call (yesterday), who arrest citizens defending themselves, who are obsessed with notching up 'crimes solved' which are spurious, who are bogged down with racial awareness, are solving trivia rather than keeping our streets safe.

This is worsened by the probation service being on the side of the criminal. What’s the point in fretting over EU rules and the Human Rights Act when a vicious murderer, son of a vicious criminal, is considered for parole and meanwhile has been in an open prison and has been released amongst us at Christmas BEFORE being paroled ?

And almost worse than those is the tale of a probation worker who should be named, shamed and sacked for being so crassly offensive, so much on the side of the murderer and being inaccurate as well. This person told Mrs Lawrence that she should apologise to Chindamo for saying that he had shown no remorse, even although Mrs Lawrence had said no such thing. The probation worker responded by accusing her of obstructing his rehabilitation.

We have become used to hearing how victims of crime are treated with less sympathy than the perpetrators, but Mrs Lawrence's experience seems to plumb new depths of politically correct affront

Why is this person able to behave like this and retain his / her anonymity?

Where is the fire in your belly, Mr Cameron. What I write isn't rocket science; it's common sense and furthermore it's what people expect and want from the Conservatives

[Simon Newman]

If you want to deter murder you unfortunately need to have the death penalty available. It doesn't need to be frequently applied, but it does have to be there.

[Think about it]

"Writing for tonight's Evening Standard he holds the Government responsible for the offensive Chindamo decision"

I wonder what DD thinks of Cameroon Graeme Archer's article on Platform 10 defending the government's 'offensive' decision.

Is the Conservative Voice now breaking ranks from the Cameroons?

[BMc]

"If you want to deter murder you unfortunately need to have the death penalty available. It doesn't need to be frequently applied, but it does have to be there."

Simon, I would be interested if you could find any evidence, anywhere, of a correlation between a lower murder rate and the availability of capital punishment as a punitive measure.

[banboris]

If we want to cut deaths caused by criminals deal with bad/careless/drunk etc driving. Kills more people than guns.

[banboris]

Simon Newman -

re: Death Penalty. Prove it. You can't. Go away.

[Matt Wright]

Agree with this article strongly.

Matt

[Yogi]

Stand up throw up is absoluteley right. In this media led age when BBC is doing the Government's spinning, Cameron comes across as wishy washy and error prone.

May I add one more item to the list given by Stand up throw up please?

the complete farce of the immigration and assylum system - if there is a net inflow of 300,000 people to Britain in 2006, surely it has put enormous pressure on Public Services - ie. Housing, Transport and NHS. This is accentuated in London because the assylum seekers are being housed in both public sector housing and the councils are also using the private rented sector. The result - housing is less and less affordable to tax paying middle income earners and the low income gropus cannot even find decent rented accommodation.

It is NOT racist to talk about immigration.

[BMc]

I am getting more and more exasperated with this whole Chindamo business and the way that we have handled our comments on it.

It seems to me that we've used it as an excuse to have a moan about Europe and the HRA, two things of which I am not particularly fond either, but not ones which seem particularly appropriate gripes when discussing the (admittedly long term) aftermath of a man's death.

Surely the point should be: What the hell is a murderer doing out of prison after little more than a decade?

[Opinicus]

@BMc and BanBoris

It is not necessary to be able to prove something for it to be true.

It doesn't matter if the Death Penalty is a deterrent or not (and by definition, it 100% prevents recidivism and deters all the rapists and murderers who commit crimes again on release), it is still retributive. It also cuts prison overcrowding and costs.

It is also popular. Offering a referendum on the death penalty would be very popular (except with metropolitan liberals, who won't vote for us anyway). And yes I know its against the EU but that's not an argument for not letting the public have its say. How a government gives effect to that say or explains why it can't will be good politics in itself.

[Brian Wood]

BMc @ 17.02

Try Singapore!

[Sean Fear]

"Simon Newman -

re: Death Penalty. Prove it. You can't. Go away"

Criminology is not a hard science, and very little can be demonstrated to be true, in the way that you can demonstrate that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.

It is quite clear that levels of homicide in this country were significantly lower prior to the abolition of capital punishment for murder in this country, than they are today.

What is not clear, is whether the rise is down to the abolition of capital punishment, or whether it isn't.

[Sean Fear]

Jonathan, when we had capital punishment for murder, most murderers were not, actually executed. So, even then, there would have been recidivist murderers.

[Richard]

It could be worse. We could be Lib Dems.

"Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell called for a 'change of atmosphere' in communities with gang violence, but said there was 'no simple solution'.

"There was a feeling of 'alienation' among some young people, he added."
-BBC News Online

His research department had presumably stayed up all night watching West Side Story.

[BMc]

Jonathan - a rationale of cutting costs and grubbing for votes hardly seems to be the most effective way for us to demonstrate to the country our capacity for moral leadership.

I for one would be deeply depressed at the prospect of swapping a government that sets policy according to focus groups for one that sets it according to the baying of the mob.

[Deputy Editor]

Statement from Cameron:

"This is an absolutely shocking murder and what matters most of all is that we catch and convict the culprits. While all of the recent incidents are separate and horrific, we do have a situation now where we have had a spate of children killing children and we have got to ask what's going wrong in our country?

The Government have talked and legislated a lot but I don’t feel they have taken real action. Summit after summit has got us no closer to addressing the causes of social breakdown which are fuelling violent crime.

It will require a ‘three dimensional’ approach involving tough laws, freeing up police time and addressing the deep rooted problems in our society.

The whole philosophy we have been putting forward is social responsibility. It's not just politicians talking, not just passing laws; we have had that over the past 10 years. Its’ responsibility from all of society. The role of police, the role of parents, the role of people in the community, the role of the music industry for the lyrics that they broadcast, the role of television and the massive influence it has on young people.

We have all got to take responsibility for the state of our society."

[Opinicus]

@BMc

Then you should move from a democracy to somewhere more congenial. Ancient Rome, perhaps.

What do you think democracy means, if not the baying of the mob? If we started working with the mob instead of against it we might win a few more elections, albeit probably not to the Garrick or Soho House.

[Anon Copper]

As a serving police officer I am not politically active, but wanted to agree with the sentiments generally expressed in this story and the replies; :law and order is a topic which requires debate, I have been hugely impressed with the proposals for Police Reform that Nick Herbert has produced and regardless of the Party which proposes such changes it is good to see sensible approaches to the subject.

The most eye rolling policies are those of 'we will recruit more police' and 'we will cut paperwork' because they are utterly vacuous statements. I want examples, stating you will recruit 20,000 new police is not a policy, it is totally speculative, the fact is that the police service is not capable of training this amount of new officers or being able to afford the wages! With regards to cutting paperwork I have to be honest and say that largely the paperwork I do is reasonable, most of it needs to be done, I am very interested and supportive of the proposal to examine the use of the stop-account form and would be interested to hear more specifics on exactly what Cameron intends to do.

As I say at the beginning, I am not overtly political; I am just interested in law and order policy and Cameron is bringing that to the fore and I appreciate that. Now let's see where this debate takes us.

[Edward]

Whilst I sympathise very much with what this article is saying I would be very wary of using this month's survey as evidence that "this is what the party wants". It would seem very likely to me that this article would skew the results of "what issue would most influence people's votes?" and accordingly the survey results should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[I may be misremembering, but wasn't crime top of the list in the survey?]

[Anon Copper]

Apologies, I also need to add that when I say I agree with the sentiments that does not extend to the discussion over the death penalty. I am only concerned with Police Reform.

[Simon Newman]

Unfortunately I don't have the studies on hand re death penalty. As I recall the evidence is that the existence of the death penalty has a deterrent effect, as long as at least some executions take place, but that increasing execution rate does not have a significant additional deterrent effect. The occasional example is enough.

If you believe it is immoral per se then this is irrelevant, of course.

[Terence]

The problem with capital punishment is that there is no convincing evidence that it is a deterrent. Also, it is irrevocable if an error is made. Finally, if juries know hanging is a possible result of a guilty verdict they may be less likely to convict, perversely leaving more criminals on the streets.

[Anon Robber]

Oi copper, get back to those piles of paperwork that Cameron is going to save you from.

[Matt Wright]

Also problems with appeals and having people waiting ages to be hanged. Why don't we just apply existing law promptly, properly and firmly! Just doing that would make a massive difference. How many laws have we got that just languish barely enforced or half heartedly applied? Don't answer that one! Take the wave of drunkeness and related crime - folks it is against the law to serve someone who is drunk. Can someone please enforce this law?

Matt

[BMc]

Jonathan - "What do you think democracy means, if not the baying of the mob?"

Dear chap, what utter nonsense. Perhaps you'd feel more at home with a move to inter-war Germany? Although I do share your frustrations that much of our current policy platform seems more in keeping with the convivial dinner conversation of the media set rather than serving the genuine concerns of the electorate at large.

There are better ways of reducing crime than championing some totemic measure of dubious efficiency. I've had ten years of a government that heralds brave new iniatives that turn out to be ineffective duds. I'll be damned if I'm going to work to elect another one.

[The Huntsman]

When a callow youth and before I knew much about the real world, I supported the death penalty. Now after thirty years at the Criminal Bar I am a determined opponent of the death penalty for murder. The possibilities of an innocent man being hanged are all too real. That ought to be enough to settle the matter, unless people are in favour of taking the risk, in which case we really are the 'nasty party'.

There is a perfectly proper argument in favour of amending both the law of homicide in its various manifestations and the penalties for various types of homicide but calls for the death penalty for murder are a distraction we do not need.

[Cleo]

Crime is important but the party must not just talk about being tough on criminals. It should have positive policies to help prevent criminality in the first place. Any election campaign has to also have a strong focus on health, education and emphasis on the environment.

[Charles Pooter]

David Kynaston’s excellent “Austerity Britain 1945-51” describes an event of exactly sixty yeas ago that has a macabre resonance today.

“During the summer of 1947, the most headline-grabbing case was that of poor Alec de Antiquis, a respectable motor mechanic in his 30s who, as he rode his motorcycle down a Soho street, was shot dead by fleeing jewellery thieves. The culprits were quickly found……, and two men were hanged at Pentonville, with the lugubrious Albert Pierrepoint doing the honours.”

The comparative rarity of such an event and the prompt retribution that followed, together with the public indignation that such a crime could have occurred at all, might lead one to wonder whether, even in that desperately bleak period to which no one would wish to return, some aspects of life in Britain were more satisfactory than now.

[TomTom]

Crime is important but the party must not just talk about being tough on criminals. It should have positive policies to help prevent criminality in the first place. Any election campaign has to also have a strong focus on health, education and emphasis on the environment.

Posted by: Cleo |

How about Tough on Crime - Tough on the Causes of Crime

That suit you Cleo ?

[social breakdown]

surely its time for a new message.
"had enough?"

EU regulation, nanny state inteference, corruption, spin, lies, fraud, hospital cuts, street crime, economic migration, human rights act, shootings, stabbings, broken promises and browns duplicity.

the country is falling apart and we need to pin it squarely on those responsible-nulabour.

[David Belchamber]

I agree about fighting Labour on their crime record but can we get some facts and figures correct this time? Labour's figures on crime are very selective and must be shown up for being misleading (as are exam results and virtually anything to do with the NHS).

[Cleo]

Yes TomTom, the crime problem will not be solved simply by building more prisons.

[TomTom]

When a callow youth and before I knew much about the real world, I supported the death penalty. Now after thirty years at the Criminal Bar I am a determined opponent of the death penalty for murder. The possibilities of an innocent man being hanged are all too real. That ought to be enough to settle the matter, unless people are in favour of taking the risk, in which case we really are the 'nasty party'.

There is a perfectly proper argument in favour of amending both the law of homicide in its various manifestations and the penalties for various types of homicide but calls for the death penalty for murder are a distraction we do not need.

Posted by: The Huntsman | August 23, 2007 at 18:18

Why not simply leave things as they are? I suspect that once the media froth has died down that is exactly the outcome anyway.

Remember Blair ?

Feb 18, 2007, 12:51 GMT

London - Following the deaths by shooting of four young men in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced harsher penalties for possessing firearms Sunday.

Speaking to Britain's BBC television, Blair said that there would be a review of the firearms law and that he favoured lowering the age at which a person could receive a mandatory five-year sentence for owning a gun from 21 to 17.

Currently, the law carries a mandatory three-year sentence for those aged between 17 and 21 who possess a firearm.

Another young man was found shot dead in London Saturday, the fourth victim in two weeks of what appears to be a series of gangland killings.

The latest victim, in his 20s, was found in a car in the capital's East End Hackney district in the early hours, police said. Three teenagers were killed in earlier shootings in southern districts.

Armed police have been patrolling streets following the spate of killings.

Police in Manchester meanwhile were investigating more shootings after men aged 18, 19 and 27 were wounded in the northern English city's Moss Side area late Friday - again suspected gangland victims.

Britain already has one of the toughest legal regimes in the world for illegally possessing weapons.

Blair said that he was considering making membership of a gang a criminal offence and pledged to increase the number of police working to combat youth-gang crime.

He said that his cabinet and the police planned a summit later in the week to discuss gun crime.

Monday, January 6, 2003 Posted: 9:30 AM EST (1430 GMT)
Birmingham
Two teenage cousins were shot dead at the back of this hairdresser's salon after a New Year's party.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- People illegally owning or using firearms will face a minimum five-year prison sentence, the UK Home Secretary David Blunkett has said.

The move is part of an attempt to crack down on the "unacceptable increase in the flagrant use of guns in crime across the country" especially in relation to drug and gang war crime culture, he added.

The Home Office said on Monday that the move comes at the end of a "wide ranging review" into the problem of gun-related crime, but it also follows the murder of two teenage cousins at a New Year party in Birmingham, central England.

Latisha Shakespear and Charlene Ellis were shot dead at the back of a hairdressers after becoming caught in gangland crossfire, police suspect.

The shootings brought into focus the availability of illegal firearms in the UK and the willingness by criminals to use them.

British newspapers spent the weekend putting forward theories for the proliferation of firearms, some blaming the violent image of rap stars, others arguing that the gun is seen almost as a fashion accessory in some quarters.

[TomTom]

Yes TomTom, the crime problem will not be solved simply by building more prisons.

Posted by: Cleo | August 23, 2007 at 18:38

That Cleo is where you are completely wrong.

If we have enough prisons so convicts serve out their FULL sentences instead of having a revolving door because the ratio of criminal offences in Britain to convicted miscreants is so pitifully low - then we will not beat crime.

Britain has enormous criminality in excess of Mainland Europe but jails fewer criminals as a proportion of crimes, and those it does do not serve their ful sentence.

[Leo's Ghost]

In an episode of the West Wing Leo and the President discussed the death penalty for drug dealers. They come to the conclusion that it would be pointless as the drug dealers live with the threat of death on a daily basis and the death penalty they face, at the hand of the other drug dealers, is neither judicial nor humane. The same has to be said here - these boys with guns know they could be next, it does not stop them.

I am rather upset by this whole post - are we canvassing on the graves of these victims? Also we need to stop this whole "Anarchy" business. Most of us are very safe and are not in danger. Young, black males are most likely to be killed - lets look at why that happens rather than scaring people to death.

As Nick Ross used to say: "Crimes like the ones shown on this programme are very rare - Don't have nightmaers".

[TomTom]

Young, black males are most likely to be killed

Love to see your Probability Calculation....I frankly think you are wrong.

The killing is random because the people with guns are chaotic and impulsive - if you have a predictive model you can share it with us

[TomTom]

Interesting case for you Cleo

Grammer

[Catriona]

Okay, here's what we do: I have said it before, and I'll say it again, the solution is simple - When a child is violent and assaults either a teacher or another pupil then they are immediately excluded and sent to an approved school.
2) Prior to entering any mainstream school the child and the parent/guardian should be made to sign a contract, within this it will stipulate that any assault/random act of violence will result them being sent away to an approved school. The school should make it clear that violence is unacceptable. They will also be sent away if they are found to be carrying a knife, drugs or any other weapon.

Instead in the current system these kids basicually get a modest slap on the wrist. Okay, they might get a couple of days exclusion, but that's it. I know because I have been working in this shit system now for over five years.

If they are a repeat offender, then they are usually (with great reluctance from the school/governors/local authority to let them go. This is because of financial incentives to keep the child in that particularly establishment) permanently excluded. But, when they are excluded, what happens to them? They just go to the next state school in the area - and cause chaos and destruction all over again. It stinks and in fact this kind of lack of discipline and lack of proper punishment only exacerbates the problem of anti-social behaviour in our streets. Kids know they can simply get away with it - they are laughing at us adults.

Let me tell you, there was a boy at my last school that was always getting into trouble for violence/aggressive behaviour nothing ever seemed to get done about it. Teachers had to suffer him, pupils that wanted to learn had to suffer because he was highly disruptive. Do you what he even urinated in one of my year 11's school bag (I kid you not. Oh, yes and in my office as well - forgot that bit). Anyway, back to the story, when he did eventually leave the school, he was seen a few weeks later being arrested in Woolworths in Stoke Newington for beating up a security guard. So, you see because the school never disciplined him properly he went onto commit yet another act of violence, against a member of the public.

BRING BACK APPROVED SCHOOLS - MAKE THEM HARD. THEY ARE NOT A BADGE OF HONOUR. WHO EVER SAYS THAT IS BEING DEFEATEST - THESE APPROVED SCHOOLS CAN BE WHATEVER WE WANT THEM TO BE. COME ON!!

[Leo's Ghost]

TomTom

Look at the faces of the people in the post at 16:34.

[Leo's Ghost]

Catriona

Approved school brutalise and toughen children even more. I have seen more students made good with love and kindness than cold showers and beatings. I also worry about anyone who would want to work in an approved school!

[Tanuki]

What about a new slogan: "Tough on Criminals. Period."

New sentencing rules:

Life to mean just that - life. You leave prison in a wooden box.

No parole, no remission or early release for anyone sentenced to more than a year's jail.

OK so there aren't enough prisons: I'd suggest getting a Scottish island, some barbed-wire, watchtowers and searchlights. After the first year there, if he's good a prisoner gets the right to buy himself a tent!

[christina]

TomTom writes
"""Young, black males are most likely to be killed"
Love to see your Probability Calculation....I frankly think you are wrong."

The BBC 6 o'clock showed 20 teenage murdered this year. 12 were black, 1 female. I don't know what conclusion to draw but that was what was on the screen.
=-=-=-=-=-=-

The problems are the full-to-capacity prisons; the curtailing of sentences; the probation service unloading unregenerated criminals back to society; the EU's laws preventing deportation and - above all - a wrecked police force where the senior officers have been brainwashed into thinking nothing matters but hitting boigus targets and being racially aware. Pity the poor copper who wants to help society.

[Iain]

Just putting up some sort of fight would be nice, and a change from the limp politically correct rubbish we are getting from Cameron.

If a politician needs something to shame them of their ineptitude and complacency, aw
s well as perhaps putting a bit of fire back in their belly, they should just take a look at the Telegraph web site on Your views, where today’s topic has asked why so many people are leaving the country, which has met with a record deluge of 500 responses.

[TomTom]

TomTom writes
"""Young, black males are most likely to be killed"
Love to see your Probability Calculation....I frankly think you are wrong."

The BBC 6 o'clock showed 20 teenage murdered this year. 12 were black, 1 female. I don't know what conclusion to draw but that was what was on the screen.

It is still not a Probability and carries no predictive value. This society is not as segregated as the USA where the primary cause of death among Black Males <30 is either AIDS or gunshot wounds....but you know that drugs is the main part of that because drugs is a Cash business and the streets are not safe so they go tooled

[Praguetory]

There is a more general truth in what Catriona writes. Murders/extreme violence are rarely out of the blue - failure to tackle low level crime/misbehaviour is a contributing factor. That's why rather than wringing my hands, I am livid at this government's ideology driven failure on crime and the obvious consequences.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

As a member of the "baying mob" and not a member of the decadent silly liberals society I agree with Jonathan's and Simpon Newman's comments comments on the efficacy of capital pinishment. Google Capital Punishment UK and you will find this:

"Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The principal methods of homicide were fights involving fists and feet, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or a broken bottle. 72% of the victims were male with young men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. The figure for 2005 is 280. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder.
Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries (e.g. Josie Russell). Careful analysis of the situation in Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders, i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently. For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms".

It was never like this prior to 1965 when the socialist Sydney Silverman's private bill of abolition finally came into force. For a few periods (1957 to 1965) prior to the final repeal and when the Act was suspended; the carrying of weapons in the commission of crime rose, and then fell again when the suspension was removed and hanging still a possibility. Prior to the to the abolition and 1957 the carrying of weapons in the commission of crime in the Metropolitan Police district was a very rare occurence.

We are prepared to kill our enemies to defend the State; we should be prepared to remove permanently certain categories of criminals - otherwise it will get worse. The above may not prove anything to the minority of liberals that infest the BBC and media that have done Britain so much damage , but it certainly hits home with the majority of the "baying mob". It would help win elections to

[David Cooper]

An excellent proposal – in old days this might have been called a “clear blue water” issue, but now it might simply serve as a specific promise to improve lives in a way that NuLab could not or would not contemplate.

My own reasons for not recommending that capital punishment enters the debate are slightly unorthodox. Thankfully, few of us will have had direct personal experience of murder, whether through being or knowing a friend or relative of a victim. Virtually all of us, on the other hand, will have had direct personal experience of burglary, mugging, assault, or vandalism of our own property, or will know someone who has suffered this. Similarly, the relatively small number of serial murderers is in marked contrast to the countless number of serial burglars, muggers, thugs and vandals who make the lives of ordinary decent people a misery.

An unequivocal pledge to focus on a substantial reduction of such offences via effective detection, arrest and conviction, particularly if this ran alongside the overt scrapping of the malign influence of the target and pseudo-detection culture upon modern policing, with some spice from the New York “broken windows” policy, ought to pay dividends.

And how to promote this? Simple. A billboard message: “The promise – tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. The reality – soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.” Perhaps illustrated with a Blair/Brown two-headed figure.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

In conjunction with my pevious post it should be pointed out that the old definition of Murder as: being with Malice Aforethought, has gone out of the window. It is now harder to actually murder, but a lot easier to be found guilty of manslaughter and diminished responsibility.

[Bill]

Are those opposed to the death penalty on the basis that innocents may die willing to accept that life must mean life to prevent murderers reoffending?

[The Huntsman]

All those of you getting excited by the thought of killing people legally ought to read and bear in mind the case of Stefan Kisko who was defended by David Waddington QC, later a Conservative Home Secretary and an enthusiast for the rope.

see http://tinyurl.com/28ge68

Now just imagine yourself as Home Secretary having to explain to the family of a man wrongly executed: what do you say? "Sorry, we'll try to do better next time".

No Labour or LibDem Home Secretary would nowadays sign a Warrant of Execution so the only party to be doing this would be the Tories. Is that really the image you want us to have?

The other point is this: I am quite sure many modern juries would be reluctant to convict some defendants if they knew they might be hanged, so a guilty murderer would be released. If you doubt this, ponder the early 19th. century when you could still get hanged for a wide range of sometimes comparatively trivial offences (sheep stealing is the most often cited). The death penalty for these offences was abolished after it became clear that Juries were acquitting in most such cases.

Besides, look at many European countries which enjoy relatively low levels of the sort of crime that is ennervating some today. Most of them abolished the death penalty long ago.

This has little to do with the death penalty and everything to do with the failure of our society. Let us concentrate on that rather than expending energy on on a debate which most had thought long over.

[Bill]

The problem with our criminal justice system lies to a large extent with the lawyers both in and outside parliament who shape it.

[Bill]

Mr Huntsman

Do you think victims of reoffenders should be able to sue those responsible for their release, "early" or otherwise.

[Allan Cuthbertson]

Like it or not the problems in society have been fostered over decades and most likely during the Thatcher years when the words 'there is no such thing as society' echoed through devastated housing estates.

Thatcher's children are now Thatcher's parents and no doubt relinquishing their parental responsibilities with the resultant breakdown in social cohesion. The children of this generation are more interested in material goods than being good citizens.

[Traditional Tory]

Of course we should fight on the issue of crime but I'm afraid the 'Hug a Hoodie' damage has already been done. It doesn't matter whether he actualy said it or not; he is exactly the (upper class yuppie do-gooder) type who would say it.

Personally I have never wavered in my desire to see capital punishment restored, but since that's not a viable option why don't we simply demand waht we were promised when it was abolished by a Labour Government namely, that in most cases 'life' shall mean exactly what it says?

[Opinicus]

@Huntsman

We have heard the opinion of the criminal bar, all I am asking is that we should hear the voices of ordinary people. Is that so terrible? Are they so worthless? Ordinary people live where murder occurs, the criminal bar lives in Hampstead and Kensington - so their perspective may be different.

Let us have a referendum and find out.

Bush and Clinton got elected by enforcing the death penalty. Why do liberals think an argument is over when they have won?

If the Bar resists the death penalty then it should be sued for negligence whenever a judge frees a criminal to kill again.

[Opinicus]

@Traditional Tory
I am ashamed of you. You are normally reliably staunch. Why is it not a viable option? You are defeated before you begin. All that is required is to appeal over the heads of the media to the people. The triumph of Liberalism is a veneer. No one you talk to believes any of it but everyone assumes nothing can be done. Of course, with DC nothing can be done. But Mrs thatcher did do it so it can *be* done. DC has at best a 50/50 chance of lasting to Christmas.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Huntsman:
I am not getting exciting by the thought of killing people illegally; it is a not something one would approach with any sort joy only a sense of duty to protect. I believe it is a deterrent. We stopped hanging people for stealing sheep etc., ages ago and to quote such is to trivialise the debate. We are concerned with those that murder in the commission of robbery, rape, financial and major crime including categories of drug runners that are quite prepared to kill others with drugs in order to make themselves rich.

Juries can have the decision as to whether capital punishment or imprisonment should apply. I do not believe that all is as rosy in Europe as you believe, but in any case we have our own problems.
If we are going to beat crime, delinquency and social anarchy someone is going to have to get tough - nasty in fact. Don't hold your breath.

Don’t worry the EU and the liberals will see to it that we will have to like the situation or lump it – it is what is known as consensus politics or an elective dictatorship and another reason not to bother to vote.

[Yet Another Anon]

"Young offenders to be barred from driving, to "hit them where it hurts: in their lifestyle and their aspirations".
For motoring offences that is reasonable, but if someone is caught robbing somewhere or mugging someone then they should be locked up and/or executed. If they murder someone or rape someone then they should be executed in some painful way. But if they are to be let out and it is expected that they should earn their own living, then if they are not dangerous drivers then taking away their driving licence will just deprive them of a lot of legal means of earning a living making it more likely that they will end up on the dole or stealing or selling drugs on the street.

Then there is the current absurdity where people under the driving age have been caught driving and set free, but banned from driving - the answer is to lock them up - what is the point banning someone from driving when it is already illegal for them to drive anyway?

In addition setting up a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act is just replacing one set of rules for lawyers to find loopholes in with another set.

Parliament debates and passes legislation, at that time the rules can be set and any rights deemed appropriate according to the conditions at the time with rights limited by what it is neccessary to be done not by some kind of absolute measure applying to all types of crimes or all points in time, emergencies may require a suspension of all rights.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Further to my previous post. I should have finished with "and another reason note to vote Tory". Vote for another party - what have you got to lose?

[Yet Another Anon]

No Labour or LibDem Home Secretary would nowadays sign a Warrant of Execution so the only party to be doing this would be the Tories. Is that really the image you want us to have?
Why should there be warrants of execution requiring government ministers to sign them, there is also no reason for there to be jury trials - there can be punishments for certain crimes that include mandatory execution and these could be passed by a court acting under mandatory sentencing delegated by the crown carried out without reference to and not countermandable by the Home Secretary. Sentence could be implemented immediately.

[David Cooper]

The Huntsman @ 21.49: the case that disturbs me more than Kisko is Sally Clark, who was put away as a result of flawed statistical probabilities masquerading as science (not even flawed forensic science) for supposed dual child murder. Her subsequent suicide is a deep stain on the system. It is not reassuring to think that mob justice would have ranked her alongside Rose West.

Bill @ 21.49: yes, life should mean life. Whether the availability of parole as such is a useful tool to encourage good behaviour in prison ought not to cloud the fact that it is an affront to victims when the likes of Chindamo can walk free at all.

[Ash Faulkner]

"Allan Cuthbertson,

It's wearing a bit thin to try and blame today's social problems on someone who was last in office 17 years ago.

I doubt if most violent criminals are politically engaged."

I don't know about that, I think Allan has a point (and I consider myself a Thatcherite). It's not a case of being politically engaged - politics, at its best and its worst, affects everything. I think that the (undeniably necessary) economic reforms of the '80s have contributed to the materialistic, me me me society we live in now.

I've no doubt Thatcher is a conservative. She believed in family, order and nationhood just as much as anyone else (though her attitude towards institutions was somewhat amiss). The problem is, her government did not actively promote those values. The result is a brilliant set of economic values, but an absence of social ones. And in that absence, people took the economic values (sink or swim, do the best for yourself, individualism) and transplanted them onto society and non-economic relations.

It's not fair to blame it on Thatcher though; none of that was her intention, and really the real culprits are the cultural revolutionaries of the '60s. They hold real culpability. But I think it's hard to deny that economic individualism has led to a society that Thatcher would greatly disapprove of. Liberalisation has not led to prudence, but consumerism, and the lack of moral/social/cultural values has been filled by individualist ones.

[Traditional Tory]

@Traditional Tory
I am ashamed of you. You are normally reliably staunch. Why is it not a viable option? You are defeated before you begin

All the other parties would oppose a return to capital punishment and I don't see how you could force Tory MPs to vote for it if they claimed it offended their consciences.

Better to go for something that could actually be achieved and which would embarass Brown.

[Mark Fulford]

All the other parties would oppose a return to capital punishment

You're a UKIPer, right? I think you're correct that all the other parties apart from UKIP would oppose a return...

Why are you posting here as if you're a Conservative?

[Traditional Tory]

You're a UKIPer, right? I think you're correct that all the other parties apart from UKIP would oppose a return...

Unless I am much mistaken I don't recall that UKIP have any parliamentary representation, so in that sense they don't count. Likewise the BNP.

A large number of Conservative MPs - possibly a majority - would support the return of capital punishment.

While I have some sympathy with UKIP I do not consider that a one issue party offers a satisfactory way forward for this country.

Where do you get your curious ideas from?

[Annabel Herriott]

I see that the state of Texas has now executed 400 "murderers. It would be interesting if there was a comparison of before and after that policy. Does anyone know of any such results? It might have a bearing on the to hang or not to hang debate.

[christina]

I've read all this with mounting disbelief. There seems to be a desire for a Debating Society discussion rather than a recognition that what Cameron proposes doesn 't begin to scratch the surface of the problem which must be tackled at where it is weakest - the demoralised police as a starting point. The Croxteth yobbos interviewed despised the police and had no intention of 'snitching' on the murderer.

Did no one see tonight's Newsnight - brilliant including IDS. THEY all had got the measure of the problem. Go watch it PLEASE

[Scotty]

"Agree with this article strongly."
Just want to echo Matt's comment on this.

Didn't Cameron work for Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary?

[Yet Another Anon]

You're a UKIPer, right? I think you're correct that all the other parties apart from UKIP would oppose a return
UKIP don't actually have Capital Punishment as official party policy although most people in UKIP support Capital Punishment, and so far as parliament goes I think the only party that has Capital Punishment as official party policy and in which all members support it is the Democratic Unionist Party.

[Philip]

Yes we need both a tough and softer approach: tough with punishments that really do deter – the state has a role in punishing wrong-doing in order to restrain the fallen aspects of our nature, for the sake of society. Also the softer more long-term need advocated by IDS to mend society by, among other things, supporting marriage, as children have the best chance when brought up by mum and dad.

As for the HRA, as others has said, surely any promise to scrap it would be meaningless without leaving the ECHR. And I understand being signed up to the ECHR is a condition of EU membership? If so, we know the answer then! Is it about time this nation got back control of its justice system?

What would a Bill of Rights have in it? More freedom-destroying PC written into law?

[Yet Another Anon]

While I have some sympathy with UKIP I do not consider that a one issue party offers a satisfactory way forward for this country.
People keep saying it's a one issue party, but actually it's had a wide ranging manifesto going in depth into various issues since before the 2001 General Election, in fact considerably more comprehensive than that of the Conservative Party under Michael Howard.

[TomTom]

I see that the state of Texas has now executed 400 "murderers. It would be interesting if there was a comparison of before and after that policy. Does anyone know of any such results? It might have a bearing on the to hang or not to hang debate.

Posted by: Annabel Herriott | August 24, 2007 at 00:25

That is pointless Annabel. Texas is the size of France and Germany combined with a huge border with Mexico and it has criminal activity way beyond the kind of things British police see.

Huntsville is where most executions take place. Houston has violent crime on a scale you could not imagine, and the presence of drugs like PCP makes for some very bizarre murders.

The Homestead Act gives Texans the right to kill intruders inside the house - outside they risk moving onto Death Row. Living on a little island barely bigger than Michigan or Louisiana does not give the perspective of when you are in a large area with contiguous borders and open to crackpots and desperadoes who murder without reflection.

When we get used to executions like that in Duisburg, or to Rumanian gangs and Russian Mafia executions in Britain and see the European crime wave explode then we can reflect when killing one child in cRoxteth becomes merely a daily event unworthy of anything more than local news coverage.

Britain has a relatively low incidence of murder - so low that it does not appear in the British Crime Survey - same with rape. In the US the two often go together which is why >50% US handguns are held by women.

Since the EU likes to interfere in Texas and its judicial system (more so than with China) perhaps the Us Government could intervene and set EU statelets right on abortion ?

[Rachel Joyce]

I agree this is an important
we need to link it to:
- rising violent crime
- early prisoner release, soft sentencing
- inadequate drug rehab
- low detection rates
- red tape caused by distorting targets
- people not even bothering to report crime any more as they have often given up
- the NEETs (not in employment, education or training - 1.2 million 16-24 year olds)

see my post on youth rotting while the crop rots - http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/2007/08/tatties-and-neets-crop-rots-while-our.html

[malcolm]

Crime, should be a key part of any Conservative election campaign but with the rather searing experience of the last two election campaigns it should only be a part. We must as I have posted before present our policies across a broad front and just focus on one or two of our favourite subjects.

[Jomo]

Nulab is the loony left with suits on. Their social policies are based on the municipal policies pioneered by the likes of Livingstone and Blunkett of the 1980s. Beneath the veneer they remain hostile to what they consider as bourgeois society, eg family values, self help, even social responsibility.

They have dealt with crime with an endless series of contradictory laws that make effective implementation impossible. They deal with every problem with a Downing Street crisis meeting of the usual suspects. When media interest move on the solutions offered are quietly binned.

The people who suffer most are the poor and powerless. They are left in the hands of "community leaders" whose interests will always coincide with nulabs.

Traditional sources of authority like parents, teachers and the police have been undermined by the human rights and diversity agendas.

If DC is serious about change he needs in my view to cut out the philosophical musings and offer some simple solutions. Filling even more jails or introducing draconian punishments will have little impact in the short to medium term.

The state has to regain control of the streets as a first step and stop the random violence. As they say in America when you bans guns only the criminals have them. Gun crime is truly the legacy of Brown and Blair. We have to pin it on them.

[Curly]

I fear there is an awful lot of "knee jerking" going on here in this thread. I suggest that a multi-stranded multi-agency approach as outlined by David Cameron is what is needed to tackle the growing lawlessness in some of our inner city areas.

As someone living on Tyneside, which thankfully does not suffer nearly as badly as other areas from the gang culture, I see daily the smaller scale problems which are proliferating elsewhere, and I am convinced that most (although not all) are related to the activities of ruthless profiteering drug traders.

As my post today indicates, it is incumbent on all of us to provide the means and support for our children which will help keep them out of the clutches of the gangs and away from the dangers of peer pressure.

There is no single solution to our crime problems, but it is right that they should be at the top of our political agenda.